[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change

2008-03-30 22:28:43

John C Klensin wrote:
If one were designing the architecture de novo today, in today's environment, there would be a strong case for "no MX default", but the sort of situation Carl mentions would also make a strong case for separate "MX-forward-path" and "MX-reverse-path" (bounces) records.

I dunno. I get leery any time the specs assume that the guy running the mail server and the guy running the DNS server are on speaking terms. I've seen too many cases (even in smallish companies) where the corporate mail server and DNS were run by one department, but web and E-mail aware applications were run by another. Typically, the latter group would be pre-allocated a "pool" of hostnames, A records, and PTR records. When they added a new server, they'd just grab the next name and number from the pool. If they had to differentiate in advance which machines sent mail, and throw MX records into the mix too, they'd never ship.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>